“There’s no comparison between male and female circumcision.” Seriously?

male vs female

Excising a boy’s healthy foreskin is just as wrong as excising a girl’s healthy labia.  Both are mutilation, and both should be illegal.
circumcision butchery

Boys are circumcised in the exact same barbaric conditions that girls are.  EVERY culture that circumcises girls also circumcises boys, and it’s not like they give the boys special treatment for their circumcisions.

Oh, and the ladies are typically fine with it, too.  Ignorance is bliss:

Unless you’ve been EDUCATED about what’s lost during circumcision, like these two ladies are:

Ayaan Hirsi Ali, FGM survivor, on male and female circumcision:

 Soraya Mire, FGM survivor and author of top-selling FGM memorir The Girl with Three Legs, on male and female circumcision:

Circumcised women still orgasm:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975
FGM Orgasm

Not to minimize the human rights violation inherent in all unnecessary cutting of children’s genitals, but the type of female circumcision by far the most common in Indonesia and Malaysia (and universally condemned worldwide) removes a rice grain-sized piece of tissue from the clitoral prepuce; the type of male circumcision most common in America removes the ENTIRE penile prepuce and oftentimes the frenulum–the male G spot.

Removing the tissue in the top photo from a baby boy is perfectly legal in the Western world, including the U.S.  Removing the tissue in the bottom photo from a baby girl is banned by federal law in most of the Western world, including the U.S.  Equality? I think not.

Of course, there are more severe forms of genital cutting performed on both genders throughout the world. This picture is simply intended to show the gender inequality under U.S. law. One is banned from removing a small piece of the female prepuce (a common form of female circumcision), but one can remove the entire male prepuce (the most common form of male circumcision) without legal action.  See the chart below for an analysis of the full spectrum of genital cutting imposed on children around the world and this article from The Atlantic for a good summary of the Western misconceptions surrounding female genital cutting.  Wake up, America.  Your culture desperately needs you to believe that “what they do over there” is entirely different and not comparable to “what we do over here,” but the facts state otherwise.  Do you not see your blindness in opposing the cutting of children’s genitals in all its forms except for the one that happens to be commonplace in your culture?  How convenient; you are no better than they.

In general, the West has collectively defined and prohibited FGM as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the female genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over her. Why, then, in this age when gender equality is so passionately pursued in every sphere, has MGM not likewise been defined and prohibited as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the male genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over him?  You can’t argue health: the vulva is, statistically-speaking, more of an infection risk than a foreskin, and we banned FGM without any inquiry into the potential health benefits of its lesser forms.  And you can’t argue aesthetics since that’s entirely subjective.  Likewise, it is entirely arbitrary to argue that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support male cutting but not female cutting.  One could just as well argue, equally arbitrarily, that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support female cutting but not male cutting.  Isn’t a basic premise of U.S. law EQUAL protection and not ARBITRARY protection?

On that note, why even genderize it into “female” or “male” at all? Genital mutilation: excising tissue from the genitals apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over them. There.

So all in all, you’re left with two options: either admit that if we’ve banned all forms of FGM, we should ban MGM as well. Or admit you’re a raving, irrational sexist.

And as a man, I am especially offended by women who believe that parents should have the right to cut off a part of their male children’s genitals but not their female children’s for some bullshit reason like “culture” or “health benefits.”  To them I say:

Stop.  Just stop.  My parents shouldn’t have had a right to cut off any part of my genitals any more than your parents had a right to cut off a part of yours.  You have no more prerogative to all of your genitals than I do to mine.

It’s funny how you’re sitting there, having not been subjected to ANY form of genital cutting, telling me that it should have been perfectly OK for my penis to have been subjected to genital cutting when I was a baby.  How dare you say that parents should have the right to cut off erogenous tissue from their child’s genitals when you happily enjoy all of yours?  Privileged much?

If that argument based on equality doesn’t compute in your brain, let me elaborate for you.  You do not believe that your parents should have had the right to cut off any part of YOUR genitals, yet you contend that my parents should have had the right to cut off a part of MY genitals–a part that I enjoy VERY much and brings me MUCH pleasure–in order to meet some cultural standard, which is bullshit since we don’t let parents cut off any other part of their child’s body for cultural reasons (nor should we), or in order to supposedly prevent MY genitals from contracting infections to which YOUR genitals, interestingly enough, are statistically more prone.  And this is all simply because I am a male and you are a female.

Well, then, if baseless, irrational, self-serving sexism is the order of the day, then I contend that you are Specimen A for the case that the female brain is vastly inferior to the male brain in the domains of logical reasoning and critical thinking.  Bravo!

cutting

Advertisements

About notyourstocut

Genital Autonomy For All. Her Body, Her Choice. His Body, His Choice.

33 comments

  1. Lawrence Newman

    That list is wrong. Foreskin removal is far worse than clitoris removal (even with infibulation as that can be reversed) in terms of the sensory and functionality loss caused. Almost all erogenous nerves are in the male foreskin’s ridged band and frenular delta.

    Like

  2. Hipster Walrus

    I’m circumcised, and you think I’m subhuman? Why not murder all skin freaks if that is what you think should be done to us. I’m happy, I don’t have a bacterial chute over the tip of my dick, so have funneith your herpes, HPV, HIV, genital warts, and in the meantime, I’ll be staying away from you. I don’t want your viruses that cause you to fucking die.

    Like

  3. You’d better stay away from women, too. You do realize, of course, that they have far more genital folds than a single foreskin where bacteria and viruses can be trapped and are far more prone to odor, smegma, UTIs, yeast infections, HPV, most STDs from vaginal intercourse, and HIV from vaginal intercourse, right?

    You also realize that European and Japanese men all have their foreskins but, on average, don’t have higher rates of anything than circumcised American men, right?

    You also realize that most circumcised women in Africa find uncircumcised female genitalia disgusting, dirty, and smelly too, right?

    Sorry if that all was too logical for you. 😉

    Like

    • TruthTroll

      ALL European and Japanese men have their foreskins? Please don’t speak in absolutes and then imply that someone else is being illogical. I’m all for a logical putdown of someone’s argument (especially Hipster’s as it truly was over the top), but I cringed when I read that statement. Overwhelmingly, these groups are uncircumcised, but not uniformly.

      Like

  4. Lawrence Newman

    “I’m circumcised, and you think I’m subhuman?”

    No, but the people who forcibly circumcise children are.

    ” I’m happy,”

    You’re in no position to comment because you were cut at birth before experiencing your foreskin.

    “, I don’t have a bacterial chute over the tip of my dick”

    It’s called natural microflora. By your logic, we should remove stomachs because they have good bacteria in them.

    “so have funneith your herpes, HPV, HIV, genital warts, ”

    Literally none of those conditions has any link to the presence or absence of foreskin.

    ” I don’t want your viruses that cause you to fucking die.”

    Better stay away from circumcised men , too, as they are equally as likely to have viruses.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Ruaridh Kerr

      Perfect example of an educated approach to a dimwitted response. thank-you for this.

      Liked by 1 person

    • TruthTroll

      How does one’s circumcision proscribe him or her from being able to express his happiness with a decision, even if it was not his? Surely you would not argue that humans can only be happy with outcomes they decided upon.

      Like

      • It doesn’t, and I don’t.

        But I certainly do contend that when it comes to losing erogenous tissue, ignorance certainly is bliss. I think most circumcised men and women would be much less happy with their reduced genitalia if they knew just what they lost to the blade.

        Like

  5. Suck Dick

    Kill your self

    Like

  6. OPisaPOS

    The statements on this page are laughable. The majority of FGMs performed in the world fall into type 1b and 2b, which is the equivalent to cutting off the male foreskin along with the penis head. Would hardly say that is comparable. This page doesn’t seem as much against GM as it is for FGM to make things “equal”. Boo hoo for the foreskin that you no longer have, and the penis that you are still able to enjoy very much. Sadly for these young girls in Africa, not only do they not get to enjoy their genitals, best case scenario is excruciating life-threatening pain during sex and childbirthing, and worst case they succumb to infections, gangrene, necropsy shortly after their procedure. These procedures are performed with razor blades, sharp rocks, broken glass, scissors that are often used on 30 girls at a time. I still can’t see how these events are the same to you. I don’t condone unconsented GM on anyone, but I think there are definitely varying degrees to the severity of the circumstances. On this site, it sounds like the aim isn’t to end all GM but only to end MGM. Your last statement obviously shows how misogynistic you are. Bravo! You’re a piece of shit.

    Like

    • Lawrence Newman

      “which is the equivalent to cutting off the male foreskin along with the penis head.”

      There is zero scientific evidence of this. It doesn’t stand up to scrutiny. That’s essentially saying women ONLY get pleasure from their external genitalia and not the vaginal canal. That’s a preposterous claim because it’s very obvious women enjoy penetrative sex. Histological analysis shows the glans penis to be non-erogenous and the foreskin to contain virtually all the erogenous nerves (fine-touch nerves as opposed to the free nerves in the glans). What you’re doing is, probably through ignorance, comparing anatomical analogues. Anatomical analogues aren’t necessarily sensory equivalents, and given what we know about the foreskin, the claim these types of FGM are worse than MGM in terms of sensory loss simply do not stand up to critical thought.

      You are also comparing apples and oranges since the female and male genitalia are morphologically different and cutting off the glans penis, while not doing any damage in terms of erogenous loss, would make sex impossible.

      I was circumcised at 14. It removed ALL my pleasure and gave me ED. This isn’t surprising since all the erogenous nerves are in the ridged band, frenular delta and frenulum, all of which were removed.

      Now I can back up my claims with hard science if you request me to. Can you find ANY studies which shows any form of FGM removes more erogenous nerves than MGM? Of course you can’t. All you can do is point to ASSERTIONS rooted in gynocentrism and faith-based belief made by feminists, the media and some in academia.

      As for ” it sounds like the aim isn’t to end all GM but only to end MGM” I find this really rich considering all FGM is BANNED in the Western world and the anti-FGM campaign in the West NEVER mentions MGM and gets enraged when anyone dares to compare the two, even though MGM is worse in terms of erogenous loss and in terms of the number of worldwide fatalities.

      ” best case scenario is excruciating life-threatening pain during sex and childbirthing, and worst case they succumb to infections, gangrene, necropsy shortly after their procedure. These procedures are performed with razor blades, sharp rocks, broken glass, scissors that are often used on 30 girls at a time.”

      This exemplifies the ignorance and the extent of the brainwashing in our culture. Apart from childbirth (which isn’t an issue for at least 90% of FGM which has no bearing on childbirth) all of these apply to MGM , too. Most MGM is carried out with rusty knives and rocks in the third world, many men get painful erections and have painful sex, many men and boys get infections due to open wounds , many men and boys get gangrene. You just ignore all this. If you don’t believe me, take a look at this:

      http://www.ulwaluko.co.za/Photos.html

      Or you could read Unspeakable Mutilations available from Amazon, which contains 50 real life stories of how MGM has ruined men’s lives, including my own-zero sexual pleasure, ED, PTSD, depression, anxiety, etc. But hey, according to you, men should just “man up” and accept they are slaves without the right to sexual pleasure and genital integrity.

      “Your last statement obviously shows how misogynistic you are. ”

      No it doesn’t. It’s satirical, because he’s referring to women who think the sexist position of approving of MGM and opposing FGM is perfectly fine.

      ” You’re a piece of shit.”

      Well nothing he’s said on this page is untrue, yet everything you’ve said is a baseless assertion. You also mock males for being traumatised and angry at having been abused as kids while you condemn FGM and have great sympathy for FGM victims.

      This is why I win every debate with people like you on this subject. I am capable of critical thought. And when you tell the truth, you don’t have to remember anything.

      I do hope the facts I’ve given you open up your mind to truth, but I won’t hold my breath. People like you want to live in an echo chamber and are triggered by facts.

      Like

    • “The statements on this page are laughable.”

      Could you let me know which ones, word-for-word, and why you think they’re laughable?

      “The majority of FGMs performed in the world fall into type 1b and 2b, which is the equivalent to cutting off the male foreskin along with the penis head.”

      Actually, statistics on this aren’t that great as FGM is an extremely private matter in the cultures in which it is practiced. And you’ll notice that in the first paragraph I mentioned Indonesia and Malaysia, not “the world.”

      The purpose of this post is to point out the sexism under the law as it currently exists in the United States when it comes to cutting children’s genitals.

      And this post does acknowledge that there are more severe forms of genital cutting performed on both genders throughout the world.

      “Would hardly say that is comparable.”

      This post never stated that it was. All it’s pointing out that FGM, broadly defined, is certainly comparable to male circumcision.

      “This page doesn’t seem as much against GM as it is for FGM to make things ‘equal’.”

      I’m not sure how one would gather that this page is “for FGM.” Do tell.

      “Boo hoo for the foreskin that you no longer have, and the penis that you are still able to enjoy very much.”

      I am intact, but I’m not sure that’s an appropriate way to respond to those who are victims of genital mutilation. Would you say, “Boo hoo for the clitoral hood and/or labia minora that you no longer have, and the vulva that you are still able to enjoy very much,” to victims of lesser forms of FGM?

      “Sadly for these young girls in Africa, not only do they not get to enjoy their genitals,”

      Actually, Catania found otherwise. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

      “These procedures are performed with razor blades, sharp rocks, broken glass, scissors that are often used on 30 girls at a time.”

      The same is true for male circumcision in these cultures.

      Again, the point of this post–and really this whole website–is to point out the sexism that currently exists under U.S. law when it comes to protecting children from genital cutting. That’s it. I’m simply pointing out that girls are protected from the most minor forms of genital cutting in the United States, but boys aren’t. While the forcible infibulation, say, of girls in Africa or the forcible castration of boys in India are ethical concerns, most of the West already agrees that these things are wrong, so there really isn’t an ideological battle to fight there.

      And regardless of what is done to children in Africa or India, the form of genital cutting performed on boys in the United States is infinitely worse than what happens to girls’ genitals at birth, i.e., no genital cutting whatsoever.

      “I still can’t see how these events are the same to you.”

      Where did I say that they were? Seems you’ve created a straw man.

      “I don’t condone unconsented GM on anyone, but I think there are definitely varying degrees to the severity of the circumstances.”

      Of course. And this post points out that a less severe form of genital mutilation performed on female children is illegal, but a more severe form of genital mutilation performed on male children is completely legal. Just out of curiosity, what form of genital mutilation have you undergone?

      “On this site, it sounds like the aim isn’t to end all GM but only to end MGM.”

      The purpose of this site is to fight for equality under the law. FGM is already illegal in the U.S., and the entire West is pretty much against it and many nations have banned it. That ideological battle has been won. Not so with male genital mutilation, and that’s why that’s the focus of this site. If the opposite were true, and a form of female genital mutilation were allowed on perfectly healthy girls, while male genital mutilation in all of its forms were illegal, then the focus of this site would be female genital mutilation.

      “Your last statement obviously shows how misogynistic you are.”

      How so? Maybe try reading that last paragraph again, very slowly.

      “Bravo! You’re a piece of shit.”

      And you’ve missed the whole point of this post, brought up non sequiturs, and created a straw man. Bravo!

      Like

    • Amanda

      So because women experience genital mutilation in Africa we should keep MGM legal in the “civilized” world. I mean aren’t we in the western world supposed to set a standard? Of course people are going to put the focus on MGM in the western world, because that’s the problem we have here. You sound like a feminist so let me put this into terms you can understand. How about we use the feminist argument that trying to cure one kind of cancer doesn’t mean that other kinds don’t matter. The way that you would combat MGM in the western world (FGM being illegal) wold be entirely different to the way you would combat it in less civil areas.

      Liked by 1 person

  7. muslims suck

    You have it all wrong… ALL MUSLIMS are subhuman.

    Like

  8. Kelcie

    Wow the comment section …calling people subhuman for their religion? Mess. And “g spot” is not even scientific proof. It’s mainly used to describe women’s spot inside her vagina which even that is not true.

    Like

  9. megan

    I’m just going to say that a lot of the logic in these comments IS SO WRONG. obviously you don’t know anything about the female anatomy because if you did, you wouldn’t think that the clitoris is less sensitive than your foreskin. that’s laughable. I understand your intentions when talking about MGM vs FGM since in western culture it’s acceptable to circumsize males but not females. that itself is an issue. but comparing one to the other saying it’s worse?? dumb. female genital mutilation isn’t natural and is life threatening. the only purpose is to make it so women don’t enjoy sexual pleasure and won’t become permiscuious. it was designed by men to keep women as loyal wives. nothing like male circumcision, where the main purpose is health benefits and even a lot of the time religious practice. I don’t comment on things on the internet much but I seriously needed to point out your bullshit

    Like

    • “that itself is an issue. but comparing one to the other saying it’s worse?? dumb.”

      There are many forms of MGM and FGM. Some are worse than others, some are about the same in terms of harm, and some are much worse than others. However, exact comparisons are difficult.

      “female genital mutilation isn’t natural”

      Neither is male genital mutilation.

      “and is life threatening.”

      The more extreme forms of FGM are life-threatening, just like the more extreme forms of MGM.

      However, the less extreme forms of FGM are typically not life-threatening, just like the less extreme forms of MGM are typically not life-threatening.

      “the only purpose is to make it so women don’t enjoy sexual pleasure and won’t become permiscuious. it was designed by men to keep women as loyal wives.”

      Not true. That is a narrative put forth by Western academics who do not understand the cultural contexts in which these rituals are performed: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

      “nothing like male circumcision,”

      Some forms of FGM are very much comparable to the particular form of MGM called “circumcision.”

      “where the main purpose is health benefits”

      Some people believe that some forms of FGM have health benefits.

      “and even a lot of the time religious practice.”

      Some people practice FGM for religious reasons.

      Like

    • Anon

      Very true Megan, clitoris and foreskin are not the same thing. Many times, FGM involves removing the clitoris or parts of the clitoris which is equivalent to removing the male glans. That’s obviously not what happens in male circumcision. And FGM relies on women being made for the sole enjoyment of their husbands. It’s based on the culture of men being in common in control. No study shows there being any health benefit for FGM.

      Like

      • The problem with comparing male circumcision to FGM is that “male circumcision” is a very specific form of MGM while “FGM” is a term that umbrellas everything from a pinprick on the clitoral hood to complete clitoral excision and vaginal infibulation.

        Comparing MGM (in all its forms) to FGM (in all its forms) will probably lead to good discussion. “If all forms of cutting baby girls is illegal, so should all forms of cutting baby boys.”

        Comparing forms of MGM that only remove skin (such as circumcision) to forms of FGM that only remove skin (such as labial excision) will probably lead to good discussion. “If removing a fold of skin from the male genitalia could potentially reduce the risk of infection, could removing a fold of skin from the female genitalia do the same?”

        Comparing forms of MGM that only remove skin to FGM (in all its forms) or comparing forms of FGM that only remove skin to MGM (in all its forms) will lead to confusion and misunderstandings rather quickly. “Male circumcision is comparable to FGM!” This is comparing a specific item to an entire category of items, which is just asking for confusion.

        “clitoris and foreskin are not the same thing.”

        No one is saying that it is. The point of this post is that FGM and MGM are certainly comparable when one compares all forms.

        Cutting off a rice grain-sized portion of a girl’s clitoral hood is rightfully deemed a human rights violation, but cutting off a boy’s entire foreskin is not. That is sexist and wrong.

        “Many times, FGM involves removing the clitoris or parts of the clitoris which is equivalent to removing the male glans. That’s obviously not what happens in male circumcision.”

        Yes, and there are also forms of MGM (known as castration) that remove a significant part of the male genitalia. However, again, the point of this post is to point out that there are other forms of FGM that are actually less severe as the form of MGM we call “circumcision,” and these are banned, but male circumcision is not.

        “And FGM relies on women being made for the sole enjoyment of their husbands. ”

        Nope. This is a Western narrative that has been refuted by anthropologists that actually study cultures that practice FGM. In most cultures that perform the most extreme forms of FGM that you’re talking about, it is typically done as a rite of passage, just like whatever form of MGM they practice. Read this: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2015/04/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-anthropologist/389640/

        “It’s based on the culture of men being in common in control.”

        Wrong again. FGM is controlled by women. See the article above.

        “No study shows there being any health benefit for FGM.”

        To be fair, though, we’ve never studied the health benefits of less extreme forms of FGM that only remove skin (i.e., are more similar to male circumcision) under the same sanitary Western conditions that we examine male circumcision. Who knows? Removing or reducing the labia minora, say, may reduce a woman’s infection risk, but we wouldn’t know because we’ve never studied it. What we have studied are the most grotesque forms of FGM performed in mud huts, and we’ve concluded that these forms of FGM have no health benefits. Obviously! We could also research the most grotesque forms of MGM performed in mud huts and conclude the same.

        Like

        • Anon

          I use male circumcision the same way health organizations use male circumcision, not what I personally feel. Male circumcision is the removal of foreskin. If male glans and parts of shaft are removed then it would be compare to FGM.

          FGM is never just removal of some skin like the hood, it usually involves removal of clitoris or parts of clitoris as well as labia. I have studied on this subject and in most cases, it’s more extreme and there is a purpose. The purpose is never medical.

          The Atlantic is many times just an opinion piece. You can’t cherry pick some opinion pieces on this topic.

          There are no studies that prove any health benefits though, yes some women say it’s great, etc but in terms of having a medical positive purpose then none is really found.

          Like

          • “FGM is never just removal of some skin like the hood,”

            This is false. And your whole argument depends on this.

            Go research female circumcision in Indonesia and get back to me.

            “in terms of having a medical positive purpose then none is really found.”

            And none has ever been sought for the forms of female genital cutting that are more akin to male circumcision.

            Like

            • Anon

              I have worked with women from Indonesia and they have had parts of their clitoris removed. And FGM is not only practiced in Indonesia where they also do remove parts or all of clitoris. When people mention FGM, they usually mean the ones where clitoris is removed.

              Your last paragraph is hard to follow.

              Like

              • “I have worked with women from Indonesia”

                Wow! You just so happened to work with women from the exact country I brought up! What a coincidence. I wonder why you didn’t bring that up before since I specifically mentioned Indonesia in the post.

                “and they have had parts of their clitoris removed.”

                That may be true, but it is also true that other women in Indonesia, Malaysia, and elsewhere underwent procedures that removed a small portion of their clitoral hood, and this procedure still falls under the category “FGM” as defined by several international medical and humanitarian organizations. It is improper and sexist that such a procedure be classified as “FGM” by these groups, while a boy’s entire prepuce may be excised without being labeled MGM.

                “And FGM is not only practiced in Indonesia where they also do remove parts or all of clitoris.”

                This is stated in the third paragraph of this very blog post.

                “When people mention FGM, they usually mean the ones where clitoris is removed.”

                So what? The term FGM properly encompasses more forms of genital cutting than only those that involve clitoridectomy, regardless of whether or not such forms exist in the public consciousness.

                In any case, the West has collectively defined and prohibited FGM as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the female genitalia apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over her. Why, then, in this age when gender equality is so passionately pursued in every sphere, has MGM not likewise been defined and prohibited as the excision of tissue–no matter how small–from the male genitalia apart from true medical need and apart from the individual’s consent, even if that individual is an infant or child whose parents retain general decision-making power over him?

                You can’t argue health: the vulva is, statistically-speaking, more of an infection risk than a foreskin, and we banned FGM without any inquiry into the potential health benefits of its lesser forms. And you can’t argue aesthetics since that’s entirely subjective. Likewise, it is entirely arbitrary to argue that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support male cutting but not female cutting. One could just as well argue, equally arbitrarily, that religious and cultural support is reason enough to support female cutting but not male cutting. Isn’t a basic premise of U.S. law EQUAL protection and not ARBITRARY protection?

                Here’s the crux of the issue that I have attempted to illustrate: We could go on an endless spiral of of the various forms of genital mutilation inflicted on both genders, but my point would remain that FGM is essentially defined as the unnecessary alteration of *any* part of a minor female’s genitalia, ranging from removing a small portion of the clitoral hood to vaginal infibulation and everything in between, and so therefore should MGM be defined as the unnecessary alteration of *any* part of a minor male’s genitalia, from removing a small portion of the foreskin to full castration and everything in between, including excision of the foreskin.

                Do you or do you not agree that this is so?

                Do you or do you not agree that males should be legally guaranteed the same right to all of their genitalia that females are to theirs in many parts of the world?

                Do you or do you not agree that males should have the same right to their foreskins–and indeed all of their genitalia–that females have to their clitoral hoods–and indeed all of their genitalia–from the day they are born?

                “Your last paragraph is hard to follow.”

                Not really. I’m pointing out that we’ve never research the “health benefits” or lack thereof of procedures remove only folds of skin from the female genitalia when performed under the same sanitary conditions under which we examine male circumcision. Why should we subject the male genitalia to such an analysis but not the more infection-prone female genitalia? Why do we respect the female genitalia in its naturally-occurring state but insist on researching the “health benefits” of removing a part of the male genitalia?

                Like

                • Anon

                  Wow, so you are denying my experience with these women because I didn’t bring it up earlier? That makes no sense. I’m a nurse, I know what I am talking about and meet people from all over he world in a very diverse city.

                  Male circumcision by a FACT has more studies done in it, WHO had listed the studies speaking of the benefits. Removing parts of the clitoris has shown no medical benefit. Removing parts of the clitoris is also not the same as male circumcision. That’s the major difference. To say this world is sexist against men and not women is odd. We both know the countries you mentioned are heavily sexist against girls and women.

                  FGM again usually involves removing parts do the clitoris and this has never been shown to have any benefits in the West. Now, I am not talking about what we believe but in terms of medical organizations, male circumcision is clearly different.

                  And it’s never just removal of clitoral hood, it’s clitoral hood AND clitoral glans. That’s the minor one. But most countries that do practice it go further and do outer and inner labia as well.

                  I am talking about medical benefits. I am sure women who have done labia surgeries have loved it but the legal part comes in when we point to studies showing health related benefits. Circumcision in the West is not legal because the West hates men.

                  Like

                  • “Wow, so you are denying my experience with these women because I didn’t bring it up earlier?”

                    I’m not denying anything–just pointing out how coincidental your statement was. I have no idea who you are, Anon.

                    “Male circumcision by a FACT has more studies done in it, WHO had listed the studies speaking of the benefits.”

                    Again, we’ve never studied the health benefits of forms of female genital cutting that only remove skin, so if you’re trying to create a distinction between male and female genital cutting on that basis, you’ve failed.

                    In any case, let’s be honest here: we could link any non-essential bodily part or tissue to infection and disease and make a seemingly valid argument for routine amputation or excision at birth.

                    “Removing parts of the clitoris has shown no medical benefit.”

                    Likewise, removing parts of the glans penis would not have been shown to have any benefits in the West. What’s your point?

                    “Removing parts of the clitoris is also not the same as male circumcision.”

                    I never said that it was.

                    However, removing the clitoral hood and arguably a portion of the labia minora is, and baby girls are protected by federal law from having such procedures done to them apart from medical need. Baby boys are not protected from having their foreskin removed. This is sexist and wrong.

                    “To say this world is sexist against men and not women is odd.”

                    The world is sexist against both genders but in different ways, and one of the ways in which the world is sexist against men in that it, by and large, does not guarantee males the right to all of their genitalia in the same way that it guarantees females the right to all of theirs.

                    “And it’s never just removal of clitoral hood, it’s clitoral hood AND clitoral glans.”

                    False. I will direct you to the WHO’s FGM chart, which describes “Type I Partial” as “total removal of the clitoris (clitoridectomy) and/or the prepuce”. You’ll notice the word “or”.

                    “I am talking about medical benefits. I am sure women who have done labia surgeries have loved it but the legal part comes in when we point to studies showing health related benefits.”

                    And as I’ve stated, we’ve never studied the medical benefits of labial surgeries except for one study. We have created an entirely separate discourse between the genders on the issue of genital cutting and enshrined it into law. This dual discourse is entirely arbitrary (we could just as well ban male genital cutting without looking into health benefits while always looking out for health benefits for female cutting), and therefore the protection afforded by the FGM law is entirely arbitrary.

                    Question for you: do you believe that females deserve the right to all of their genitalia from the day they are born?

                    Second question for you: do you believe that males deserve the right to all of their genitalia from the day they are born?

                    Like

                    • Anon

                      I don’t know why you put up a link from something you wrote, that by no means proves anything. The heavy points I am trying to make is that we have far more information on male circumcision which plays into legal issue.

                      Again, male circumcision has many more studies backing up health benefits, something removing a girl’s clitoris does not hold up, which by the way, that chart you linked in says type one is also removing at least parts of the clitoris which is different from male circumcision. I have been saying this, type one can involve removing parts of the clitoris hence why people call it FGM. Type two is also very common and that’s where FGM really focuses on. I don’t think many would be freaking out if it was just her foreskin, most are far more invasive. Most women I have spoken with that come from African countries have no clitoris at all and their labia is extremely reduced. Reasons and history behind removing these women’s clitoris and labia is also VERY different. They do it for MEN, not for the well being of the girls/women.

                      I highly disagree about the sexist part, you can link them as being the same but obviously many don’t feel that way.

                      http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

                      You can read about it more here.

                      “Type 1: Often referred to as clitoridectomy, this is the partial or total removal of the clitoris (a small, sensitive and erectile part of the female genitals), and in very rare cases, only the prepuce (the fold of skin surrounding the clitoris).”

                      I don’t have any fight in this but there is a clear difference and objectively, male circumcision comes from a different place and many people who believe in male circumcision in the West believe in their own rights as parents and doing what they think is right for their child in terms of legal religious matters as well as medical. I can’t call Jewish people as being bad because they “are taking away rights”. We can even take that argument to other things we do to babies where they might not want if they grow up. All I know is that in the West, male circumcision is legal and protected under many laws. It’s not because we hate boys.

                      I am anon because I don’t want to put my pictures on social media for safety reasons.

                      Like

                    • I posed internal links not to “prove” anything, but to provide additional color for the points I am making lest my comment get too long.

                      In any event, I think we’re going around in circles here, missing each other and focusing on different issues than what the other is bringing up, but at the end of the day, this issue boils down to equal rights and the question of whether or not everybody should get to decide for themselves how much of their genitals they keep or if only females should have this right.

                      So I present two questions to you:

                      (1) Do you believe that women and girls should be guaranteed the right to all of their genitalia from the day they are born and that a grown woman, and no one else, should have the right to decide for herself how much of her genitals she keeps?

                      (2) Do you believe that men and boys should be guaranteed the right to all of their genitalia from the day they are born and that a grown man, and no one else, should have the right to decide for himself how much of his genitals he keeps?

                      Thanks!

                      Like

  10. Anon

    I have heard you but I already explained that this comes down how you view circumcision. It’s hard to go further when one is absolutely against it. Equal rights but when a family views circumcision positively? They aren’t doing it because they value girls more. This is not about me so I can’t answer those questions but I explained myself in last post on the perspective in the West.

    Like

    • How is it fair in the West for women to be the only ones who get to decide how much of their genitals they keep, but men don’t get that same choice?

      How is it fair in the West for women to be guaranteed the right to all of their genitals from Day 1 but men not be guaranteed the same right to all of theirs?

      Why should you get to keep all your genitals but I shouldn’t?

      Like

      • Anon

        Again, you are coming from a place where you oppose male circumcision so of course you don’t see it as fair, what if a man thinks it’s very fair. What you consider “all” your genitals or organs of reproduction does not hold up. Meaning, this would be better conversation if a side was not deeply affected by it. Like you said, this is going in circles.

        Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: